Re: SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim & Mary Walker

bass wrote:
Why must you start with a presupposition that the universe had a start? To do so would imply that "something" can come from "nothing." This is illogical and not possible. Not even the big bang is a start, as the matter and energy were ALREADY there.

Even if I allowed you the luxury of a god, that god would need to be ALREADY there.

So since there is no such thing as absolute nothing, why are you starting with the presupposition that the universe had a start?

Your question, in other words, contains false assumptions upon which the questions are based.

AcesLucky
By the way - some great scientist and thinkers believe that the
universe has a "start". Some names include Newton, Olbers, Hubble,
Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and others. This, the expanding
universe concept and the non existance of time prior to the creation
is all perfectly inline with the writings of the Bible.

The notion that everything have always been there, have always existed
is old 20 th century thinking and is contrary to modern science.
Ahhh. That's because modern science defines space and time as inseparable, and perhaps rightly so, but one thing is often overlooked ...

There was ALSO ALREADY TIME, even at the big bang, no matter how small as to appear non-existent; but if time did not exist prior to the big bang, there could never have been a big bang! See, in order for something to explode, there has to be an imbalance which causes something to m o v e! Movement automatically implies space implies time.

Long story short: no time = no movement = no bang. (There is no movement unless there is already time and already space [the size of that space is completely relative, and so is the amount of time].)

The "start" they define is merely a reference point, but is not a zero-time-absolute...otherwise everything would forever be stuck right there. Again, no time, no space, no movement. All of existence would be like a solid.

Excuse me while I hit this..
AcesLucky
It's time for you to publish your scientific theory with the
appropriate calculations vindicating your argument. You seem to have
accomplished scientific fact which no other scientist have managed to
date.

Well done! :-)
Okay, here it is...

Rate x Time = ZERO when either rate or time is already zero. (Where's my Nobel Prize for pre-algebra?)

No rate means distance equals zero; no time means distance equals zero; distance equals zero means no relative space. Nothing moves!

Call Scientific American...I've made a staggering breakthrough!

Seriously, I think you're confusing "start" with "origin". The universe can have an origin (the big bang will do), but it could not have had a start (a point at which "behind it" in time there was no existence). That would be the equiv of something from nothing. The big bang is merely a change in "state"!

You want to hit this j?
AcesLucky
Now that you have publsihed your "scientific paper" the next step
would be to get it acredited by the scientific world - and cliam
victory based on your own interpretaion of your own work.

Your logic is in stark contrast to some very prominient physicists and
well acredited scientists.
Here is the correct version of what I'm saying;

Now that you have publsihed your "scientific paper" the next step
would be to get it acredited by the scientific world - and NOT claim
victory based on your own interpretaion of your own work.

Your logic is in stark contrast to some very prominient physicists and
well acredited scientists.
No it's not. I don't think you understand their work.

No scientist worth his salt will tell you that "something" can come from "nothing."

The big bang is a reference point, not the origin of absolute existence. If that were so (that it's the origin of absolute existence) then how did the original matter and energy get there in the first place...in..order..for..there..to..be..a..big..bang?????

Obviously the matter and energy were ALREADY THERE! (If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to explode, would there?)

They are merely stating a reference point to which the stars in this universe can be traced back to an originating event. They are NOT talking about the absolute beginning of all.

Give me some time and I will provide you with some verbatim quotes
what some of the world's most prominent scientist say. Will get back
to you. :-)
Okay.


Hi AcesLucky

Here are some verbatim quotes from Stehpen Hawkings.

Book - "The Universe in a Nutshell"

Reflect on page 78 bottom;
"THE HOT BIG BANG - If general relativity were correct, the universe
"STARTED" with an infinite tempareture and density ....."

Reflect on page 79 middle;
While the theorems that Penrose and I proved showed that the universe
must have had a "BEGINNING", they didn't give much information ....."


Book - "A Brief Histoy of Time - Updated and Expanded Edition"

Reflect on page 14 middle;
"One may say that time had a "BEGINNING" at the big bang, in the sense
that earlier time could not be defined."

Reflect on page 14 bottom
"One can still imagine that God created the universe at the INSTANT of
the big bang."

Reflect on page 15 top
"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place
limits on when he might have carried out his job!"


I can quote from several books from other scientsist - I just don't
have the time.

This vindicates my statement that your scientific theory is at odds
with the theories of the big guns. You need to get your theory
published and acredited.

Here's what I wrote in the post prior to the "okay":
---
No it's not. I don't think you understand their work.

No scientist worth his salt will tell you that "something" can come from "nothing."

The big bang is a reference point, not the origin of absolute existence. If that were so (that it's the origin of absolute existence) then how did the original matter and energy get there in the first place...in..order..for..there..to..be..a..big..bang?????

Obviously the matter and energy were ALREADY THERE! (If they weren't, there wouldn't be anything to explode, would there?)

They are merely stating a reference point to which the stars in this universe can be traced back to an originating event. They are NOT talking about the absolute beginning of all.
---

Now, let's apply what I've said to your quotes:

"THE HOT BIG BANG - If general relativity were correct, the universe
"STARTED" with an infinite tempareture and density ....."

Notice: there is ALREADY temperature and density (matter / energy). The word "started" is merely a reference point for the beginning of the explosion that gave rise to the expanding universe of stars. But the matter / energy was ALREADY in existence, wasn't it?
--

"One may say that time had a "BEGINNING" at the big bang, in the sense
that earlier time could not be defined."

Notice: "in the sense that earlier time could not be defined." And why not? Because time is defined by rate and distance. Where everything is at the same point, there is no "other place" to serve as a reference. If distance is the difference between point A and point B, and A-B = Zero, then Rate (speed) cannot be calculated. It is therefore a figure of speech to refer to this point as a beginning since any reference BEFORE that event has no reference, and thus no mathematical meaning.

It DOES NOT imply that there was no time "absolute" because that would imply no space (A-B) absolute, as that would mean nothing for the explosion to explode into ( = space). The fact that the explosion expanded, AUTOMATICALLY implies "space", otherwise there could be no movement! (Which is what I said before!)

Scientist can only define space in terms of two (linear), but more correctly, or THREE points. It doesn't mean that space doesn't exist. It only means that without three points of reference, IT CANNOT BE DEFINED. One point cannot define space! And that's what is being said. Can't define space? Can't define time!

Look at it this way: "where is the point sitting?"

(And if that answer is not obvious to you, try this..: "what's on the other side of the point?" Or if that's not obvious to you, "what's the distance between the front of the point and the back?" See, space exists no matter what. Defining it though, like time, requires other points of reference. Without them, it's not that they don't exist, it's that they can't be defined.)
--

"One can still imagine that God created the universe at the INSTANT of
the big bang."

That's fine. One can imagine this, because BEFORE that, we have no clue, and no way of defining it.
--

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place
limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

No problem there either. It's just that several billion years does not equal 6 or 7 days. (Unless you change the definition of days...into a thousand years, and so forth like people do when they realize the words don't make sense.)


AcesLucky






.

Relevant Pages